CASE NO. 16: that the judge be fined in the amount of P15,000.
that the judge be fined in the amount of P15,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law and
PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO vs. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN and
SHERIFF IV LEONARDO V. AGUILAR [A.M. No. RTJ-01-1651. September 4,
2001]
FACTS:
On February 24, 1998, a water craft M/L Hadja, from Bongao, Tawi-tawi, was docked
at the port area of Tacloban City with a load of 100 tons of tanbark. Robert Hernandez
was the consignee to said cargo. While the cargo was being unloaded, the NBI
decided to verify the shipment's accompanying documents where it was found to be
irregular and incomplete. Consequently, the NBI ordered the unloading of the cargo
stopped. As a result, the tanbark, the boat, and three cargo trucks were seized and
impounded.
On March 5, 1998, NBI-EVRO 8 Regional Director Carlos S. Caabay filed a Criminal
Complaint for the violation of Section 68 (now Section 78) of P.D. 705, The Forestry
Code of the Philippines as amended, against the captain and crew of the M/L Hadja,
Robert Hernandez, Tandico Chion, Alejandro K. Bautista, a forster, and Marcial A.
Dalimot, a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer of the DENR.
Bautista and Dalimot were also charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, along with Habi A. Alih and Khonrad V.
Mohammad of the CENRO-Bongao, Tawi-tawi. The complaint was docketed as I.S.
No. 98-296 at the Prosecutor's Office of Tacloban City.
On March 10, 1998, DENR took possession of the cargo, the boat and the three
trucks, through the previous direction of the complainant. Due notice were issued to
the consignee, Robert Hernandez and the NBI Regional Director.
On March 11, 1998, Hernandez filed in the RTC of Leyte a case for replevin to recover
the items seized by the DENR and was docketed as Civil Case No. 98-03-42.
On March 16, 1998, subpoenas were issued to the respondents in I.S. No. 98-296 and
on March 17, 1998, confiscation proceedings were conducted by the PENRO-Leyte,
with both Hernandez and his counsel present.
On March 19, 1998, herein respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan issued a writ of
replevin and directed Sheriff IV Leonardo V. Aguilar to take possession of the items
seized by the DENR and to deliver them to Hernandez after the expiration of five days.
Respondent Sheriff served a copy of the writ to the Philippine Coast Guard station in
Tacloban City at around 5:45 p.m. of March 19, 1998.
Thus, the filing of this Administrative complaint against respondent via a letter
addressed to the Chief Justice and dated April 13, 1998, by Atty. Tabao.
Complainant avers that replevin is not available when properties sought to be
recovered are involved in criminal proceedings. He also submits that respondent judge
is either grossly ignorant of the law and jurisprudence or purposely disregarded them.
Complainant states that the respondent sheriff had the duty to safeguard M/L Hadja
and to prevent it from leaving the port of Tacloban City, after he had served a writ of
seizure therefor on the Philippine Coast Guard. According to the complainant, on
March 19, 1998, the vessel left the port of Tacloban City, either through respondent
sheriff's gross negligence or his direct connivance with interested parties. Moreover,
complainant pointed out that respondent sheriff released the seized tanbark to
Hernandez within the five day period that he was supposed to keep it under the terms
of the writ, thereby effectively altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying the
integrity of said evidence.
Respondent judge claim that the charge of gross ignorance of the law was premature
since there is a pending motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the replevin case.
Further, he claimed that he was unaware of the existence of I.S. No. 98-296 and upon
learning of the same, he issued an order dated March 25, 1998, suspending the
transfer to Hernandez of possession of the subject items, pending resolution of an
urgent manifestation by the complainant. Respondent judges stresses that the writ of
replevin was issued in strict compliance with the requirements laid down in Rule 60 of
the Revised Rule of Court. He also pointed out that no apprehension report was
issued by the NBI regarding the shipment and neither did the DENR issue a seizure
report.
Respondent sheriff submits that he served the writ of replevin on the Coast Guard to
prevent the departure of subject vessel since he does not have the means to
physically prevent the vessel from sailing. He further claimed that he verified the status
of the cargo with DENR and that it came from a legitimate source except that the
shipment documents were not in order. Respondent sheriff contends that it was his
ministerial duty to serve the writ of replevin, absent any instruction to the contrary.
The Office of the Court Administrator, in a report dated April 8, 1999, recommended
that the charges against respondent sheriff be dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge was grossly ignorant of the law and
jurisprudence for issuing the writ of replevin.
RULING:
The complaint for replevin states that the shipment of tanbark and the vessel on which
it was loaded were seized by the NBI for verification of supporting documents. It also
stated that the NBI turned over the seized items to the DENR "for official disposition
and appropriate action". These allegations would have been sufficient to alert the
respondent judge that the DENR had custody of the seized items and that
administrative proceedings may have already been commenced concerning the
shipment.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts cannot take cognizance of cases
pending before administrative agencies of special competence. Also, the plaintiff in the
replevin suit who seeks to recover the shipment from the DENR had not exhausted the
administrative remedies available to him. Prudent thing for the respondent judge to do
was to dismiss the replevin outright.
Under Section 78-A of the Revised Forestry Code, the DENR secretary or his
representatives may order the confiscation of forest products illegally cut, gathered,
removed, possessed or abandoned, including the conveyances involved in the
offense.
It was declared by the Court in Paat vs. Court of Appeals the that enforcement of
forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management
of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. The
DENR should be given free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a
controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The court held that the assumption of
the trial court of the replevin suit constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the
domain of the administrative ageny's prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy
the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged within an administrative body of special
competence.
The respondent judge's act of taking cognizance of the subject replevin suit clearly
demonstrates ignorance of the law. He has fallen short of the standard set forth in
Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, that a judge must be an
embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. To measure up to this
standard, justices are expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing
jurisprudence. Failure to follow basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of
the law from which no one may be excused, not even a judge.
On the charges against respondent sheriff, the Court agreed with the OCA that they
should be dismissed. Respondent sheriff merely complied with his material duty to
serve the writ with reasonable celerity and to execute it promptly in accordance with
the mandates.
Respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan was found liable for gross ignorance of the law
and is accordingly ordered to pay a fine of 10,000. 00, with a warning that a repetition
of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely. The complaint against
respondent Sheriff IV Leonardo V. Aguilar is dismissed for lack of merit.